A RG EN T I N E D EB A T I N G A SSO C I A T I O N

A S O C I A C I O N D E D EB A T E A RG EN T I N A

REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is often vital to a debate, and judges are likely to place significance on the extent to which
you rebut and thereby engage with other teams in the round. This sheet covers several ways to do
rebuttal, but is non-exhaustive.

1. Disputing the Causal Claim

This common form of rebuttal relies on disputing that the action specified will lead to the
consequences claimed. For example, if someone argues that legalising all drugs will lead to larger
numbers of drug dealers, you can dispute this analysis.

Remember that sometimes, arguments rely on causal chains. For example, a team might argue that
legalising all drugs (A) leads to larger numbers of street-level drug dealers (B), which itself leads to
higher levels of gang violence (C).

So, the argument is of the format A → B → C.

You should attack that argument at its weakest point; between A and B. It is probably quite difficult
to dispute that larger numbers of street-level drug dealers will increase gang violence. It is easier to
dispute that legalising all drugs increases the number of street-level drug dealers; you can observe
that pharmaceutical companies are likely to be able to out-compete. You can then observe that
consequence C won’t come about as consequence B doesn’t come about.

2. Disputing the Value Framework

This form of rebuttal involves saying that the thing the other side claim will happen is actually not
valuable. They may not have justified that it is valuable; if so, you may have an easy time with this
rebuttal. Note that you should be careful here; some things (less children will die) may be obviously
valuable. But if somebody does not justify the value of something more nebulous (equality, one vote
for one person, retribution in criminal justice etc.) it is open to you to dispute if it is valuable.

This rebuttal works by saying that even if A → B, B is not valuable.

Note that you can argue this is the case as well as using other forms of rebuttal; for example, by
saying “Even if A does → B, which we dispute, B is still not valuable.”

3. Disputing the Importance

This form of rebuttal works by disputing how important the argument is. Broadly, this can work in
two ways, which should be used together as far as possible.

i. Damage Limitation

Sometimes, an argument seems to be at least somewhat correct. In such a case, it may be

strategically sensible to concede that it is true. However, you should downplay how true or how
important the argument is. For example, if it is argued that a policy will reduce economic growth, you
may wish to concede this – but to then go on to say why it will only reduce it a bit. Explicitly
conceding the argument to some extent can give you a great deal of credibility, but be careful not to
concede too much of the case.

Note that this is not enough to beat the other team. You also need to establish that the benefits (or
harms) you are claiming outweigh the harms (or benefits) you just limited. This should be done
explicitly, incorporating the idea below.

ii. Other things are more important

This can be used independently of the above or in conjunction with it. Sometimes you can respond to
a series of smaller claims by arguing your points are more important. Sometimes you can deal with
an argument by conceding in part, and then comparing the remainder to your argument. For small
arguments that are complicated to rebut, you may wish to say something like “Maybe that’s correct;
but even if it is true, what’s more important is...”

When you come to compare arguments, you should do this as closely as possible.

4. Disputing the Comparative Analysis

Lastly, you may wish to dispute the comparative. If they say in a debate that “X will happen, and X is
much better than the status quo” (or, “The status quo is X, and that is much better than
Government’s policy would make it”), then you can dispute that the status quo is as they describe it.
You can therefore deny their comparative; say that a different comparative is the relevant one. For
example, “the status quo is actually X”, or “the thing they claim will happen will happen anyway
without the policy.”

5. Some Common Argument Flaws with Arguments

- Bare Assertion – if a team gives no reasons why an argument is true, you should point out
that they have just asserted it. You should also provide reasons why the argument isn’t true.
- Contradiction – if you are sure an argument is in contradiction with an earlier argument, you
can point this out. You should also explain why this is harmful to their case.
- Causation and Correlation – if someone claims that event X followed event Y and therefore X
caused Y, you should respond by observing that this does not necessarily mean X caused Y
without further analysis. You should then provide analysis for why X is not likely to cause Y.
- False Dichotomy – this occurs where a team claims that there are only two possible options,
and then tries to apply the obviously bad one to you. Don’t let them characterise the debate
in this way; you should be very clear about what you are trying to prove instead.
- Straw man – teams will sometimes try to characterise your argument as being simpler than
you presented, or saying something different. Here, you just need to observe that a team is
not engaging with the arguments you actually made. You may wish to remind the adjudicator
of what you said and, in extreme cases, point out how it differs.

6. Closing Comments

Remember the following:

- You can’t rebut all causal arguments; don’t feel you need to if you have disputed the value
framework, or already attacked a premise that causal claim is based on.
- You can’t rebut every argument; don’t feel you have to if their claim is clearly true, there are
better uses of your time or it’s not strategically important
- If you are going to concede an argument in its entirety, make sure that you are certain that
the debate will not turn on the argument. If in doubt, it’s safer to respond.